City of Kansas City, Missouri Missouri Cases

The City of Kansas City sought contractual indemnity from Concentra Medical Centers for costs incurred in an employment discrimination lawsuit against the City. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Concentra, finding that the contractual indemnity provisions, as modified by Concentra's proposal and an additional insured endorsement, did not obligate Concentra to indemnify the City for liability arising from the City's own actions. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the City's liability in the underlying discrimination case stemmed solely from its own conduct, not from Concentra's actions.

B. Richest appealed the dismissal of his whistleblower claim against the City of Kansas City, Missouri, which alleged he was terminated for reporting a supervisor's policy violation. The trial court granted the City's motion to dismiss, finding the claim time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that it was not clear from the face of the petition whether the Human Resources Board's decision upholding Richest's termination constituted a "disciplinary action" under the whistleblower statute, thus precluding dismissal on statute of limitations grounds at this stage.

K.C. Air Cargo Services, Inc. (KCACS) and the City of Kansas City, Missouri, were in a dispute over the rental rate for a renewed lease of airport property, specifically whether an appraisal was required to determine the fair market value of land and improvements. The City appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of KCACS on both KCACS's petition and the City's counterclaim for declaratory judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the issues regarding the rental rate calculation and the inclusion of improvements were previously litigated and decided, thus issue preclusion applied.

J.L. Wilson sued the City of Kansas City for disability discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act after his employment was terminated due to a permanent work restriction. The circuit court entered judgment for Wilson, including an award of litigation expenses. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment on the discrimination claim, finding the City's objection to certain evidence was not preserved. However, the Court reversed the award of litigation expenses, clarifying that while such expenses are not "court costs" under the MHRA, they may be recoverable as "reasonable attorney fees" if they are reasonable out-of-pocket expenses normally charged to a fee-paying client. The case was remanded for a determination of these fees and appellate costs.

Sophian Plaza Association and a class of plaintiffs sued the City of Kansas City after the City terminated its trash rebate program, alleging breach of injunction, breach of contract, specific performance, and civil contempt. The circuit court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that the breach of contract claim was not viable because the underlying agreement had merged into a 1976 Modified Judgment. Furthermore, the Court found that the current class could not bring a civil contempt action to enforce the 1976 judgment because they were not parties to the original litigation, and the original plaintiffs were not certified as a class under Rule 52.08.

Ms. Natalie McKinney sued the City of Kansas City, Missouri, alleging a hostile work environment under the Missouri Human Rights Act. A jury awarded her damages, and the City appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and improper admission of "me-too" testimony. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding the evidence sufficient to support the hostile work-environment claim and that the City failed to preserve its objection to the "me-too" testimony, which was not plain error. The court also granted Ms. McKinney's motion for attorney fees on appeal and remanded for their determination.

Tarshish Jones, an African-American firefighter, sued the City of Kansas City for race discrimination under the MHRA, alleging he was unfairly denied promotion to captain due to a biased scoring process. A jury found in favor of Jones, awarding damages and attorneys' fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting the City's arguments regarding the timeliness of Jones's administrative complaint, the admissibility and exclusion of expert testimony, and the calculation of attorneys' fees against a sovereign entity. The case was remanded solely for the determination of additional attorneys' fees incurred on appeal and post-judgment.

Jeanne Johnson sued the City of Kansas City for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), securing a jury verdict in her favor. The City appealed, raising four points concerning judicial estoppel, a refused verdict form, the submission of future economic losses, and the denial of remittitur. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in declining to apply judicial estoppel and no prejudice from the alleged instructional errors due to the application of a statutory damage cap. The court also sustained Johnson's motion for attorney's fees on appeal and remanded the case for their determination.

Shahidah Hazziez sued the City of Kansas City for retaliation and discrimination, obtaining a jury verdict in her favor. The circuit court subsequently granted the City's motion for a new trial, citing an improper jury instruction (Instruction 15) and improper closing argument regarding damages. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the circuit court's order for a new trial, finding that Instruction 15 was indeed improper, misleading, and prejudicial to the City.